Case law

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Nov 17, 1998

The Board may not adopt regulations that conflict with a state statute. (See Gov. Code, § 11342; Graham v. State Board Of Control (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 253; Henning v. … (Austin v. Board of Retirement (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532.)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · May 10, 1990

Younger v. … Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 U.S. 105 (1967). . . ." (397 U.S. at p. 58, emphasis added). With respect to local appointive boards and commissions, Sailors v.

Opinion No. (2002)

California Attorney General Reports · Apr 23, 2002

Union v. Board of Trustees (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1661 , 1665-1666 ; City of Lomita v. Superior Court (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 479 , 481-482 ; City of Lomita v. … Employees Assn. v. Sunnyvale Elementary Sch. Dist. (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 46 , 60 ; see Service Employees Internat. Union v. Board of Trustees, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 1673 ; Darley v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · May 16, 1986

Thus, in Coulter v. … The significant point for our present consideration is that Coulter v. Board of Education, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d 445 did not in any way overrule the holding in Neilsen v. Richards (1925) 75 Cal.App. 680.

Opinion No. (2004)

California Attorney General Reports · Jan 30, 2004

(See County of Los Angeles v. Sasaki (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1442 , 1451-1453 ; 70 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 87 , 87-88 (1987).) … (Ibid; see, e.g., Consolidated Fire Protection Dist. v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Assn. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 211 , 214 .)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Nov 16, 1998

(See Peralta Federation of Teachers v. Peralta Community College Dist. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 369, 387; Holbrook v. Board of Education (1951) 37 Cal.2d 316, 333-334; Jensen v. … Board of Trustees (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 945, 948; Vittal v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 112, 118; LaRue v. Board of Trustees (1940) 40 Cal.App.2d 287, 293; Hogsett v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Mar 30, 1999

(Mazolla v. … City of Long Beach (1979) 24 Cal.3d 238, 249; Weis v. State Board of Equalization (1953) 40 Cal.2d 772, 776-777; Goleta Valley Community Hospital v.

Opinion No. (2002)

California Attorney General Reports · Jan 11, 2002

(Frazier v. Moffatt (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 379 , 386 .) … Com. v. Smith, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 122 .)

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Jul 18, 1991

In our view, the officer would be a de facto, if not de jure, member of the Board. (See, e.g., In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill (1964) 61 Cal.2d 21, 42; Town of Susanville v. … (Town of Susanville v. Long (1904) 144 Cal. 362, 365 [77 P. 987]; see also Oakland Paving Co. v. Donovan (1912) 19 Cal.App. 488, 494-496 [126 P. 388]; Clark v.

Opinion No. (2004)

California Attorney General Reports · Nov 18, 2004

Similarly, in Madden v. … (See Albright v. City of South San Francisco (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 866 , 870 ; City of Roseville v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · May 13, 1994

Assn. v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 836, 844; Moyer v. Workman's Comp. … Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train (1977) 430 U.S. 112, 134; Dix v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at 460; Industrial Indemnity Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 3d 999, 1009; Norian v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Jan 15, 2021

Reduction Co. v. … Williams v.

Opinion No. (2000)

California Attorney General Reports · Mar 8, 2000

On January 30, 1998, Defendant again took and subscribed the oath of office of Commissioner for the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, before the Honorable Philip V. … leave to sue in quo warranto is DENIED. 1 Undesignated section numbers hereinafter are to the Government Code. 2 The second paragraph of the oath required by the Constitution was ruled invalid by the Supreme Court in Vogel v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Oct 30, 1990

Board of Supervisors (1978) 22 Cal.3d 644, 653; Great Western Sav. & Loan Assn. v. … (See Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612-616; Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 22 Cal.3d 644, 651, fn. 2; Hayssen v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · May 28, 1997

(Hicks v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 69 Cal.App.3d at 242; see also People v. Langdon (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 384, 388-390 [county clerk].) … Assn. v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · May 19, 1993

(Compare, e.g., City of Woodlake v. Logan (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1058 with Rider v. … Of course, the Board would also be required to obey a superior court order as it directly relates to the issue, should the lower court declare the statute unconstitutional. (See Fenske v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Jul 6, 1990

Board of Education (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 445, 455; Main v. Claremont Unified School Dist. (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 189, 197-198; Leymel v. Johnson (1930) 105 Cal.App. 694, 699-703.) … This prohibition would clearly prevent a school board member from becoming a teacher in the same district. (See Thomson v. Call (1985) 38 Cal.3d 633, 645; Neilsen v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Mar 14, 1986

In that case, as did the Supreme Court in Brown v. … This means that the services have been ordered by some officer or board then having authority to do so. (Hart Bros. Co. v.

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports · Oct 22, 1987

Miller v. Cal. Com. on Status of Women (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 693, 700; Miller v. Miller (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 762, 768-769; Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206.) As stated in Miller v. Cal. … Stanson v. Mott, supra, 17 Cal.3d at 213), does not attempt to influence the resolution of issues which our Constitution leaves to the free election of the people (Miller v.

Opinion No. (2002)

California Attorney General Reports · Jun 7, 2002

Chapman v. … The prohibition of section 1090 cannot be avoided by having the board member with the financial interest abstain from participating in the making of the contract. ( Fraser-Yamor Agency, Inc. v.